Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Poll for your website.
 
HOA-SYNDROME "Forum"

Register Login Chat
 
www.HOA-SYNDROME.com ~ HOA1.co > Forums > "GEMS" from Tim
 
Username:  
Password:  
 
   
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
SamJudie

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/02/10
Posts: 128

    03/25/11Reply with quote#1



CLICK HERE !

 

 

then..........

 

Suggestions for wording in SB 254 to assure both Claimant and

Respondent have equal protections, equal accountability and are

subject to equal punishments for certain violations.

Suggested additional wording is in PLAIN TEXT CAPITAL

LETTERING. Removed wording has a strikethrough.

SB 254 Section 3, part 6, page 6, lines 3-12

6. {If any common expense is caused by the misconduct of any

unit's owner, the} The association may assess {that} a common

expense exclusively against {his or her} a unit OWNED BY THE

CLAIMANT OR THE RESPONDENT Hif the common

expense isfor the legal fees and costs incurred by an association

to defend a proceeding initiated by a claim which was:

(a) Filed with the Division by the unit's owner pursuant to

NRS 38.320 or 116.760; and

(b) Found by the Commission or a hearing panel to have been

filed in violation of subsection 9 ofNRS 38.320 or subsection 9 or

10 ofNRS 116. 760f.j, OR

(C) SUBSTANTIATED BY THE DIVISION OR BY THE

COMMISSION.

SB 254 Section 5, part 5, page 9, lines 28-32

5.1fthe Commission finds that an appealfrom afinal order of a

hearing panel isfiled in bad faith or without reasonable cause for the

purpose of delay or harassment, the Commission may impose any of

the sanctions set forth in subsection 9 NRS 116.760 against the

[person} CLAIMANT OR THE RESPONDENT who filed the appeal.

SB 254 Section 10, part 9, page 13, lines 42-44 and page 14,

lines 1-14

9. If a [per~on} CLAIMANT OR RESPONDENT files a claim OR

DEFENSE OF A CLAIM pursuant to this section or NRS38.320

which the [person} CLAIMANT OR RESPONDENT knows is

false or fraudulent or if a [person} CLAIMANT OR

RESPONDENT files such a claim OR DEFENSE OF A CLAIM

in bad faith or without reasonable cause for the purpose of

harassment, the Commission or a hearing panel may [impose}:

(a) Impose an administrative fine of not more than $1,000 against

faRyt the {person] CLAIMANT OR RESPONDENT who filed the

claim OR DEFENSE OF THE CLAIM;

(b) Issue an order directing the [person} CLAIMANT OR

RESPONDENT who filed the claim OR DEFENSE OF THE CLAIM

to pay the costs incurred by the Division as a result of that filing,

including, without limitation, the costs incurred by the Division in

investigating the allegations in the claim;

(c) Issue an order directing the [person} CLAIMANT OR

RESPONDENT who filed the a claim OR DEFENSE OF THE

CLAIM to pay the reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by

the {respondent} OPPOSING PARTY IN THE CLAIM as a result of

the filing of the claim; or

(d) Take any combination of the actions set forth in paragraphs (a),

(b) and (c).

SB 254 Section 10, part 10, page 14, lines 15-24

10. If a [person} CLAIMANT OR RESPONDENT files afrivolous

claim OR FRIVOLOUS DEFENSE OF A CLAIM with the Division

pursuant to this section or NRS38.320, the Commission or a hearing

panel may:

(a) Issue an order directing the [person} CLAIMANT OR

RESPONDENT who filed the frivolous claim OR THE FRIVOLOUS

DEFENSE OF THE CLAIM to pay the costs incurred by the Division

as a result of that filing, including, without limitation, the costs

incurred by the Division in investigating the allegations of the claim

AND DEFENSE OF THE CLAIM; or

(b) Issue an order directing the [person} CLAIMANT OR

RESPONDENT who filed the frivolous claim OR THE FRIVOLOUS

DEFENSE OF THE CLAIM to pay the costs and attorney's fees

incurred by the {respondent} OPPOSING PARTY IN THE CLAIM

as a result of the filing of the claim.

SamJudie

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/02/10
Posts: 128

    03/26/11Reply with quote#2

I got a note from Tim:

Sam,
 
That is fine.  I am flattered you think my comments are worthy.
 
FYI I received an e-mail from Michael Buckley, Chairman of the CIC Commission concerning this e-mail too.  Note I copied him on the e-mail
 
He thanked me for reading it so well and said I was right.  The bill, SB 254, is flawed.  Both claimant and Respondent must be treated equally.  The appropriate changes will be made.
 
He said he was particularly concerned because he was involved in writing the bill and wants to be sure it is correct and fair.
 
Tim
SamJudie

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/02/10
Posts: 128

    05/07/11Reply with quote#3




Breaking news about how SCA Member Tim Stebbins proved to Nevada Legislature that CAI-sponsored Senate Bill 254 was unconstitutional! 




http://hoaadvocate.homestead.com/Stebbins_Proves_SB254_Unconstitutional.pdf
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply